i have to give thebox credit for some stuff he posted. things not from text books. rarely find those stuff in a science forum.

I agree, some ideas are original and others have already been explored before by philosophers. The problem comes when trying to discuss them, you quickly run into such a lack of basic understanding (or a deliberate obscuring?) that reasonable and profitable discussion becomes impossible.People don't join this forum to provide personal amusement for others, there has to be a pay off, a reward. Sometimes that comes from helping others, sometimes from a really interesting problem or idea. We all have day jobs or other interests and time is part of the cost/benefit analysis. There have been some potentially interesting discussions with the box, but I've had to abandon them because wading through the dross has diverted the ideas way off topic.For example, I'm tempted to start a thread on the differences between sense perception and probable reality, but perhaps not on this forum because I would value some rational discussion.

Logged

and the misguided shall lead the gullible, the feebleminded have inherited the earth.

If no one has already, I thought this might be interesting to look up. It is a physics lecture Richard Feynman did called: Photons: Corpuscles of Light. The Sir Douglas Robb Lectures at University of Auckland 1979. You can probably find it on youtube. I don't have the original link, it's an old file I have from when I was in college. No, I'm not that old. . I attended college starting in 2012. I love listening to his lectures, also Leonard Susskind. Just thought it may help in some way. Sometimes it's best to start over at the beginning and just re-think all of it all over again. If you come up with nothing new, no harm done but a better understanding of it will come out of it. enjoy!

That's why it's unwise for people to accept anything you say as being correct. It might be that to you but it certainly isn't the way Newton, and thereby the rest of the physics community and the world, defined it. Newton very clearly defined it as follows: if an object has a mass m and is moving with velocity v then the force is defined as

If no one has already, I thought this might be interesting to look up. It is a physics lecture Richard Feynman did called: Photons: Corpuscles of Light. The Sir Douglas Robb Lectures at University of Auckland 1979. You can probably find it on youtube. I don't have the original link, it's an old file I have from when I was in college. No, I'm not that old. . I attended college starting in 2012. I love listening to his lectures, also Leonard Susskind. Just thought it may help in some way. Sometimes it's best to start over at the beginning and just re-think all of it all over again. If you come up with nothing new, no harm done but a better understanding of it will come out of it. enjoy!

I also found this while digging around for some other research I was doing.o Gravitational waves are weakly interacting, making them extraordinarily difficult to detect; at the same time, they can travel unhindered through intervening matter of any density or composition. Electromagnetic waves (i.e. light or photons) are strongly interacting with normal matter, making them easy to detect; but they are readily absorbed or scattered by intervening matter. newbielink:http://www.tapir.caltech.edu/~teviet/Waves/differences.html [nonactive]

I highlighted that one part and italicized it as well, because neutrinos do exactly the same thing. Or, they have the same properties in respect to that aspect between them anyway.

Yes, I meant "very close." They are not identical, as there is some influence from the mass of the nucleus, but it is insignificant compared to the influence of changing the atomic number (charge of the nucleus). It takes a very good spectrometer using some special techniques to distinguish an H emission spectrum from a D emission spectrum.

I also found this while digging around for some other research I was doing.o Gravitational waves are weakly interacting, making them extraordinarily difficult to detect; at the same time, they can travel unhindered through intervening matter of any density or composition. Electromagnetic waves (i.e. light or photons) are strongly interacting with normal matter, making them easy to detect; but they are readily absorbed or scattered by intervening matter. http://www.tapir.caltech.edu/~teviet/Waves/differences.html

I highlighted that one part and italicized it as well, because neutrinos do exactly the same thing. Or, they have the same properties in respect to that aspect between them anyway.

i read it, not agree. i think em force and gravitation force are the same force.

if the moon suddenly becomes a proton star, only carries n amount of positive charges, let's see the force between moon and earth. set earth has m protons and m electrons.

the attraction between moon proton and earth electron is n x m, the repulsion between earth proton and moon proton is also n x m. it should be no net force. but in reality, induce made the net em forces an attraction which proportional to the product of charges/masses.

if the moon becomes an electron star, we get the same amount of em attraction force/gravity.

gravity wave is produced by vibrating mess/charge, how could a star or the earth vibrate at high frequency? only atoms able to vibrate at high frequency to produce detectable waves.